NOTICE: The following article
is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their
copyright. I will give some information on them. Seven years ago on this day
(29 November 2005), Dennis Prager wrote this brilliant pro death penalty
article.
PAGE TITLE: http://townhall.com/
ARTICLE TITLE: Opponents in capital
punishment have blood on their hands
DATE: 29 November 2005
AUTHOR: Dennis Prager
AUTHOR
INFORMATION: Dennis
Prager (born August 2, 1948) is an American syndicated radio talk show host,
syndicated columnist, author, and public speaker. He is noted for conservative
political and social views emanating from Judeo-Christian, Jewish, and American
values. He defines the latter as E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty
(which includes small government). He is a Media Fellow at the Hoover
Institution of Stanford University. He taught Jewish and Russian History at
Brooklyn College, and was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of
International and Public Affairs, where he did his graduate work at the Russian
Institute (now the Harriman Institute) and Middle East Institute from
1970-1972. He has lectured in 46 states and on six continents and traveled in
98 countries and the 50 U.S. states. He speaks French, Russian, and Hebrew, and
has lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. An avid classical
music lover, he periodically conducts orchestras in Southern California.
 |
| Dennis Prager |
Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands
By Dennis Prager
11/29/2005
Those
of us who believe in the death penalty for some murders are told by opponents
of the death penalty that if the state executes an innocent man, we have blood
on our hands.
They
are right. I, for one, readily acknowledge that as a proponent of the death
penalty, my advocacy could result in the killing of an innocent person.
I
have never, however, encountered any opponents of the death penalty who
acknowledge that they have the blood of innocent men and women on their hands.
Yet
they certainly do. Whereas the shedding of innocent blood that proponents of
capital punishment are responsible for is thus far, thankfully, only
theoretical, the shedding of innocent blood for which opponents of capital
punishment are responsible is not theoretical at all. Thanks to their
opposition to the death penalty, innocent men and women have been murdered by
killers who would otherwise have been put to death.
Opponents
of capital punishment give us names of innocents who would have been killed by
the state had their convictions stood and they been actually executed, and a
few executed convicts whom they believe might have been innocent. But
proponents can name men and women who really were -- not might have been --
murdered by convicted murderers while in prison. The murdered include prison
guards, fellow inmates, and innocent men and women outside of prison.
In
1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts,
murdered because she knew of Allen's involvement in a Fresno, Calif., store
burglary.
After
his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.
According
to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, "In Folsom State
Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him
so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses
were dead -- or scared into silence." As a result, three more innocent
people were murdered -- Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas
White, 18.
This
time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down
by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.
For
23 years, opponents of the death penalty have played with the legal system --
not to mention played with the lives of the murdered individuals' loved ones --
to keep Allen alive.
Had
Clarence Allen been executed for the 1974 murder of Mary Sue Kitts, three
innocent people under the age of 30 would not have been killed. But because
moral clarity among anti-death penalty activists is as rare as their
self-righteousness is ubiquitous, finding an abolitionist who will acknowledge
moral responsibility for innocents murdered by convicted murderers is an
exercise in futility.
Perhaps
the most infamous case of a death penalty opponent directly causing the murder
of an innocent is that of novelist Norman Mailer. In 1981, Mailer utilized his
influence to obtain parole for a bank robber and murderer named Jack Abbott on
the grounds that Abbott was a talented writer. Six weeks after being paroled,
Abbott murdered Richard Adan, a 22-year-old newlywed, aspiring actor and
playwright who was waiting tables at his father's restaurant.
Mailer's
reaction? "Culture is worth a little risk," he told the press.
"I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to save this man's
talent."
That
in a nutshell is the attitude of the abolitionists. They are "willing to
gamble with a portion of society" -- such as the lives of additional
innocent victims -- in order to save the life of every murderer.
Abolitionists
are certain that they are morally superior to the rest of us. In their view, we
who recoil at the thought that every murderer be allowed to keep his life are
moral inferiors, barbarians essentially. But just as pacifists' views ensure
that far more innocents will be killed, so do abolitionists' views ensure that
more innocents will die.
There
may be moral reasons to oppose taking the life of any murderer (though I cannot
think of one), but saving the lives of innocents cannot be regarded as one of
them.
Nevertheless,
abolitionists will be happy to learn that Amnesty International has taken up
the cause of ensuring that Clarence Ray Allen be spared execution. That is what
the international community now regards as fighting for human rights.
Comment: I love a paragraph
of this article: “Whereas the shedding of innocent
blood that proponents of capital punishment are responsible for is thus far,
thankfully, only theoretical, the shedding of innocent blood for which
opponents of capital punishment are responsible is not theoretical at all.
Thanks to their opposition to the death penalty, innocent men and women have
been murdered by killers who would otherwise have been put to death.”
Dennis Prager is
absolutely 100% right here, the abolitionists do not mention violent criminals,
terrorists, serial killers, mass murderers, prison killers and many other kinds of murderers. Why? It is because they are too scared to mention how dangerous
it is to keep dangerous people alive. They have sentenced many innocent people
to death themselves too.
PLEASE CHECK THIS VIDEO FROM
DENNIS PRAGER:
Is it immoral for the state
to kill convicted murderers? Is it immoral for the state not to? Best selling
author Dennis Prager answers both questions in this powerful five minute
presentation. Visit PragerUniversity.com for more five minute video courses.
(SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment